No, you missed my point. I think I fully understand the situation. But really, there is zero chance he would become Pope, the issue is whether or not he could vote to select one.
As I wrote, I think the issue here is what action the Catholic Church takes against Pell. Does Pope Francis defrock Pell on the basis of a civil court's findings or does he think he requires a church tribunal to reach a conclusion if guilt before he takes such an action?
You missed this bit
Others say the Church should immediately accept the decision of courts of countries with a stable democracy.
Imagine the results if they found him innocent in a Canon Law Court, in contradiction to the civil law cases which has already been upheld on appeal!
This case depended on the testimony of a victim. How and why should he have to go through that again, and if he didn't it is not a truly representative case.?
There was also another victim who committed suicide because f his abuse by Pell....What about the effect on his parents?
No, I read that bit. There was no reason to respond to it since it is irrelevant to the point I was making.
It would have no impact at all on the decision of the civil court if a Catholic tribunal found Pell innocent. As I wrote, and you have ignored yet again, the only impact would likely be Pell's standing as a cardinal, which is an internal church matter.
The witness would obviously not be a part of a secret church court.... Unless of course demanding to be a part. It is reslly implicit that it would just use records from the trial. That is the "all evidence" part.
Isn't a Vatican court more focused upon this than anything else:
"Another issue is that if there is a papal election before Pell turns 80 in two years time, will Pell be allowed to participate?"
If found guilty by this church action, will he not be defrocked?
I don't understand what you mean?
The court of an institution which has ( and still does) hide criminals in its midst from secular law, is hardly more focused on the crime than a secular court.
You are totally missing the point that if he is in prison in Australia, it would be embarrassing, to say the least, if he were still eligible to become Pope, as it is uncertain whether the Pope will go through with canonical court.
No, you missed my point. I think I fully understand the situation. But really, there is zero chance he would become Pope, the issue is whether or not he could vote to select one.
As I wrote, I think the issue here is what action the Catholic Church takes against Pell. Does Pope Francis defrock Pell on the basis of a civil court's findings or does he think he requires a church tribunal to reach a conclusion if guilt before he takes such an action?
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
This video did not answer some questions that come to mind. In the most common version of the medal, why is a raven depicted? Does this have anything to do with Poe's poem? If I am wearing a medal that has been blessed, am I immune from harm if somebody attempts to poison me?
Are you aware that analogy is a basic tool of reasoning? The fact that it happens to be YOUR church is irrelevant. I chose it because, just like the LDS church, the Catholic church is a centralized organization (unlike Protestants, Jews, and Muslims). So, the point of the analogy becomes clear (at least to nearly everyone).
This was a cut/paste from Yahoo search. As you are having a problem with the content, take it up with them you coward.
I have no problem at all with the content of your link. The problem is all yours, in that you created a thread to make an assertion not backed up anywhere in that article. (I went over all that in my first post; no need to repeat).
I have asked you (simple yes or no) if you still stand by your assertion that the Mormon Church owns Ancestry.com. You've now posted to me twice since then, and still refuse to answer. Instead, you decided to slander me with the label of "bigot", and when I challenged you to either give an example to back up your charge or withdraw it, you do neither one. And that means that you are content to show yourself off on this thread as a simple slanderer. Strange that you, as a Catholic, are OK wearing that label, since (according to Catholic education) the word "devil" means slanderer.
Is it being shown in true IMAX or just that crappy 2K Lie-MAX?
You would have to explain this distinction to me ...
IMAX was developed fifty years ago using 70mm film projected onto a huge screen. It is impressive and immersive. But it is being phased out without the IMAX Corp. making any distinction between true IMAX and the digital presentation that they call IMAX using two ganged digital projectors onto a bigger than normal screen but far smaller than a true IMAX screen. Two projectors are needed to keep it at usable brightness, but they are at only 2K resolution, half the resolution of a regular digital presentation. it is big, but not very sharp.
Some of us call it Lie-MAX because it is a fraud to call it by the same name of a process that has the most impact of any available format.
Christopher Nolan has his films released in true 70mm IMAX. I saw "Interstellar" and "Dunkirk" in both true IMAX and Lie-MAX. The difference was incredible. I would rather see a regular digital presentation than one in Lie-MAX and never select the latter option.
He said he recognized her at a party and said "weren't you in Hercules in New York?" which he hadn't seen but knew enough about it.
"Her jaw dropped and she covered her face with her hands."
then said, "Please tell me you haven't seen that thing."
He said no and she replied, "Thank God," she said. She chuckled a little, but just kept looking at the ground, then said, "just please don't mention it again."
Oh dear....
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
Access to Ancestry.com was free at LDS Family History Centers, and recently the company signed a deal with the church's genealogy non-profit, FamilySearch.org.
Signed a deal, but it does not expand on the nature of that deal or on its finances.
It doesn't matter in a discussion of the ownership of Ancestry.com as this has no bearing on that.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
Answer #1 covers exactly what you posit in your first paragraph. Answer #4 is what your second paragraph states.
But that is not what everyone has been talking about. The discussion has been almost exclusively about whether levitation is possible when it should have been about Osteen himself.
Erjen deflected in the direction you indicate. I attempted to set it back on course. It did not work.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
I don't think the question of whether levitation is possible is what is being claimed for Osteen. The implication of the story is that god miracled him into the air. Since it came at the end of the sermon, the story is saying that god so approves of Osteen that he sent a sign to everyone else- not that Osteen himself created the levitation.
But the story must be fabricated because Joel Osteen is such a huge obvious fraud that whoever or whatever any god is, that god would punish him instead of lifting him up, either figuratively or literally.
Answer #1 covers exactly what you posit in your first paragraph. Answer #4 is what your second paragraph states.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
Do you recall any scenes that were not in the original or Redux?
I believe that I have only viewed the Redux version once (although I have it on DVD), so I do not possess much feel for that edition, but apparently, none of the footage is new. See this article from Variety:
However, the visual remastering is truly impressive. One would be hard-pressed to imagine a film looking (or sounding) better, especially one from forty years ago. Therefore, if you possess the chance to see it in the theater (especially in IMAX), I would certainly spend the money.
Is it being shown in true IMAX or just that crappy 2K Lie-MAX?
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
I was basically responding to a claim that Mormons don't believe in hell. This may be somewhat correct as they usually call the worst place one can end up as "outer darkness" which they consider a complete separation from God. Lucifer and the third of the host that followed him in the Mormon story of the Preexistence will end up there along with a small handful who are called sons of perdition who lived and committed the unpardonable sin. Everybody else who ever lived will obtain a degree of glory in heaven.
But for most purposes I think Mormons equate outer darkness with hell. Different Christian groups have their own shades of meaning and concepts of the two terms.